WHY YOU NEED TO KNOW THE RULES AND GUIDANCE IN RELATION TO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE: A WEBINAR

May 29, 2020 · by · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In the  judgment discussed earlier today in Tully v Exterion Media (UK) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1119 (QB), Master McCloud, made some important observations in relation to how the courts deal with surveillance evidence.  As a result of that I have arranged to present a webinar on this topic on the 16th June 2020.

The defendant served surveillance evidence after the parties had exchanged witness statements and medical reports.

THE DEFENDANT’S APPROACH

The Master’s judgment made it clear that there was nothing wrong with the approach the defendant took.

  1. On 4 October 2018, once experts’ reports and witness statements had been exchanged the Defendant served surveillance footage and made it clear that it was adopting the position that this showed that the injuries if any were not as claimed in the witness statement. I have not needed to view the footage but it is clear from the Claimant’s own statement that it shows him walking without support on short local shopping trips (he says he is nonetheless limping but that is in dispute). Neither Mr Unwin nor Mr Cobb had seen or been aware of the footage.
  2. I need not go into details since it is not disputed materially but adopting the approach of serving the surveillance material in this manner is appropriate and the Defendant cannot on these facts be said to be engaging in a late ambush, or for example failing in disclosure duties. See, eg Douglas v O’Neill [2011] EWHC 601 (QB). The usual procedure is that a Claimant is served with surveillance material, if there is any to be relied on, once he or she has first clearly pinned his/her colours to the mast by way of factual and expert evidence (where the expert evidence is of a sort which might be affected by, eg, malingering).

Later in the judgment the Master comments on a witness statement made by the claimant’s solicitor.

“There are then in evidence various complaints that the surveillance was served without warning, etc, which I attach no weight to and which seem to be a misunderstanding of the correct approach in relation to such material, which was handled appropriately by the Defendants.”

WEBINAR TO DEAL WITH SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE

In response to the issues raised in this case, and to ensure that litigators can be fully aware of the rules and cases relating to the use and surveillance evidence, I am presenting a webinar on the 16th June 2020.  Booking details are available here. 

(The webinar will be available “on demand” thereafter).

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE: PRACTICE, PROCEDURE AND THE KEY CASES

This webinar deals with practice and procedure in relation to the production of surveillance evidence in personal injury cases.

The webinar will also take a detailed look at the rules and cases on surveillance, in particular the recent High Court decision in Tully -v- Exterion Media (UK) Ltd.

It will cover:

  • Is the defendant allowed to rely on surveillance evidence?
  • Are there limits to what a defendant can do?
  • When should surveillance evidence be served?
  • Those cases where the defendant has been refused permission to rely on surveillance evidence
  • What is the appropriate response to surveillance evidence?”
Tags: , ,